It would cost £176 billion to buy out the franchises now, a figure put about by the Tories to discredit the idea (whether you agree with the idea or not it's just an example of politicians, as always, playing games in a way that ordinary voters detest). The Labour plan, as far as I understand it, is to take them back into Public ownership as the franchise deals expire, effectively costing nothing.

By the way Catullus, re an earlier post of mine. How much does Westminster subsidise Wales by ? You said it does in one of your earlier posts.

So in fact, the South East of England is subsidising the rest of the UK. It also came out recently that the SNP had massively (and probably knowingly) over estimated the revenues from North sea oil....ok the article I saw accused them of blatantly lying. So I'll ask again, for all those who hate Westminster/England and want Independence, how will we (Wales) or Scotland and Ireland pay for ourselves if we left the UK and would the EU pick up the tab? Assuming they let us join. This shows the funding gap,

It's a bit of a tangent I know but, for anybody who supports Brexit because you think immigration is a problem, you should watch "King Arthur's Britain - The truth" with Alice Roberts. It shows, well my understanding is, that immigration wasn't a problem at all before nation states and that back in the 5th century no one thought of themselves in anything more than parochial terms. We are such a mix of peoples, such a diverse range. It basically says there was no Anglo Saxon invasion, no massive war, it was a peaceful settling and integration of peoples. That right there is my only issue with some immigrants, the lack of genuine integration. I don't care about colour, creed or religion but wherever you choose to live you need to integrate. We managed it over 1500 years ago but today all we seem to do is argue about it. I don't know my genetic mix but the program shows that every single one of us is part foreign, part immigrant.

If, as is highly likely, the Labour Conference votes for a second Brexit vote, then the government falls apart precipitating an autumn General Election which Labour wins, then a second vote is held and this time the result is 'Remain', will you be leaving the country, as you have urged Remain voters to do in this thread several times?

If, as is highly likely, the Labour Conference votes for a second Brexit vote, then the government falls apart precipitating an autumn General Election which Labour wins, then a second vote is held and this time the result is 'Remain', will you be leaving the country, as you have urged Remain voters to do in this thread several times?

You’re assuming Corbyn has the intention of having the choice remain on the vote.

More cr@p from you. Most remoaners who resorted to project fear were from the Tory party ?. You seem to have forgotten every single Lib Dem, SNP, PC and many of the Labour Party.

You are just another clueless, subliminally brain washed idiot.

The fear tactics were very much orchestrated by the Tory Government, Cameron and Osborne being the chief culprits. They clearly thought this would be a good strategy, based on what they thought worked in the Scottish Independence vote (although there's good reason to believe this approach alienated as many voters as it succeeded in convincing).

This is the crux of the matter, the whole Brexit fiasco is all about the Tory party and it's attempts to manage irreconcilable differences within the party,whilst trying to gain or cling on to power. Tory Remainers and Brexiteers alike have always put their party ahead of their country. It says it all about the situation of the Labour party and Lib Dems that the Tories haven't had their comeuppance.

The fear tactics were very much orchestrated by the Tory Government, Cameron and Osborne being the chief culprits. They clearly thought this would be a good strategy, based on what they thought worked in the Scottish Independence vote (although there's good reason to believe this approach alienated as many voters as it succeeded in convincing).

This is the crux of the matter, the whole Brexit fiasco is all about the Tory party and it's attempts to manage irreconcilable differences within the party,whilst trying to gain or cling on to power. Tory Remainers and Brexiteers alike have always put their party ahead of their country. It says it all about the situation of the Labour party and Lib Dems that the Tories haven't had their comeuppance.

Brexit isn’t about a political party at all. Maybe for class warriors such as yourself, it maybe, but I voted to leave not because a politician or political party told me too, but because I wanted too.

Len Mcluskey, who is unfortunately hugely influential in today’s Labour Party, was on 5Live earlier putting his view that any second referendum shouldn’t have “remain” as an option. That position is nonsensical in my view but I wouldn’t be surprised it it ends up being Labour’s official policy ifvthe conference votes to back a second referendum.

Len Mcluskey, who is unfortunately hugely influential in today’s Labour Party, was on 5Live earlier putting his view that any second referendum shouldn’t have “remain” as an option. That position is nonsensical in my view but I wouldn’t be surprised it it ends up being Labour’s official policy ifvthe conference votes to back a second referendum.

He actually said that? Did he say what he thought the options should be?

I assume if there’s no deal on offer he doesn’t see the need for a second referendum. We just crash out and hang the consequences. Madness.

I think political predictions currently are even more useless than normally, but i have a feeling May will be gone by Christmas.

If that is the case think it is quite possible Corbyn will not be leader of Labour by the end of March, because I don't see Labour winning a general election.

How that impacts Brexit I have no clue, but I once lived near Rye in East Sussex, and have an escape route to Dover mapped out that sneakily bypasses the expected traffic jam on the M20 up to Brands Hatch, in the event of no deal.

Len Mcluskey, who is unfortunately hugely influential in today’s Labour Party, was on 5Live earlier putting his view that any second referendum shouldn’t have “remain” as an option. That position is nonsensical in my view but I wouldn’t be surprised it it ends up being Labour’s official policy ifvthe conference votes to back a second referendum.

Len Mcluskey, who is unfortunately hugely influential in today’s Labour Party, was on 5Live earlier putting his view that any second referendum shouldn’t have “remain” as an option. That position is nonsensical in my view but I wouldn’t be surprised it it ends up being Labour’s official policy ifvthe conference votes to back a second referendum.

That’s only nonsensical to the likes of you, because you want to stop Brexit. Accept the deal or no deal is the only option that could possibly be asked in a second referendum. The decision to leave has already been taken.....you don’t like it, well tough tit$.

It's a bit of a tangent I know but, for anybody who supports Brexit because you think immigration is a problem, you should watch "King Arthur's Britain - The truth" with Alice Roberts. It shows, well my understanding is, that immigration wasn't a problem at all before nation states and that back in the 5th century no one thought of themselves in anything more than parochial terms. We are such a mix of peoples, such a diverse range. It basically says there was no Anglo Saxon invasion, no massive war, it was a peaceful settling and integration of peoples. That right there is my only issue with some immigrants, the lack of genuine integration. I don't care about colour, creed or religion but wherever you choose to live you need to integrate. We managed it over 1500 years ago but today all we seem to do is argue about it. I don't know my genetic mix but the program shows that every single one of us is part foreign, part immigrant.

Thanks for the heads up. Interesting program, although it made a number of sweeping conclusions based on very few facts. There was more than an element of putting up straw soldiers to knock down. Arthur was largely a mythical person - no shit Sherlock. However, were there warrior kings who led the fight against the Anglo-Saxons - very probably, and it's more than possible one (or more) was called Arthur. You also have the precedent of the likes of Caradog (Caratacus) and Buddug (Boedicea) opposing the invading Romans - so I would say it's pretty unlikely there wasn't a multitude of warrior kings opposing the Anglo-Saxons, but in the absence of much in the way of documentary or archaeological evidence it's largely supposition. Having said that, it was interesting that there was no mention of the poem Y Gododdin, atributed to Aneurin, recording the battle at Catraeth (modern day Catterick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Catraeth

They acknowledged that there is very strong DNA and archaeological of a west-east divide, and yet chose to focus on the evidence of ethnic mixing in the east as proof that there was no divide. Strange line of reasoning. The evidence they presented would be consistent with a swift conquest of the low-lying areas with the superior arms technology of the Anglo-Saxons, and progressive assimilation (rather than elimination) of the indigenous populations. This is hardly a novel situation. The wholesale genocide of indigenous populations is not the norm - but it doesn't mean that the Anglo-Saxons were welcomed with open arms (which Alice Roberts all but states) by the indigenous Britons.

The existence of Offa's Dyke is perhaps the clearest evidential riposte to the notion that Britons were indifferent to the arrival of the Anlgo-Saxons. There was no mention of it at all, even though it was a massive undertaking, over centuries. Even though it's possibly a more recent structure than the Dark Age period they talk about (although perhaps not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45592682) , it's existence nevertheless reflects the adversarial nature of the relationship of the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, which would hardly have arisen spontaneously at a later date.

The whole programme smacks of an attempt to expulcate the modern-day English for the past misdeeds of the Anglo-Saxons. After all, an origin story that is based on invasion and theft of territory is a pretty inglorious one. Rather than constructing a false narrative why not just acknowledge the past in all its ignoble facets. Just like the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon wouldn't have been welcomed by the natives, it's pretty much certain that the arrival of the Celts would have been opposed - it's just that there's no record of the fact. All nations have skeletons in the closet, let's not pretend otherwise.

So, I agree that we're all immigrants to a greater or lesser extent, and that is something to be embraced, acknowledged and celebrated. There's no need to be dishonest about how we have arrived at the point we're at.

I wonder who are these mythical people who aren't integrating? What do they look like, what is it that they do or don't do that shows they aren't integrating?

He did. He said if there was a new referendum the options should be accept the deal that’s on offer or leave with no deal.

Maybe he said that because he knows the EU position on state funding/nationalisation and that Corbyn's grand plan is unlikely to be allowed should we remain? McCluskey wants us back where we were 40 years ago, where unions held the country to ransom. I'm not saying there shouldn't be reform but maybe from the top down, worry about the bosses actions that are forcing strike action instead of people who feel forced into striking. Should any business be allowed to pay out massive dividends and not give a pay rise? There's another thread needed for this I think!!

The fear tactics were very much orchestrated by the Tory Government, Cameron and Osborne being the chief culprits. They clearly thought this would be a good strategy, based on what they thought worked in the Scottish Independence vote (although there's good reason to believe this approach alienated as many voters as it succeeded in convincing).

This is the crux of the matter, the whole Brexit fiasco is all about the Tory party and it's attempts to manage irreconcilable differences within the party,whilst trying to gain or cling on to power. Tory Remainers and Brexiteers alike have always put their party ahead of their country. It says it all about the situation of the Labour party and Lib Dems that the Tories haven't had their comeuppance.

I'm not disagreeing entirely but the LibDems, SNP, Plaid and Welsh Labour were very much against Brexit and pushed that line too. The LibDems are still very vocal about stopping it and are even trying to attract remainers from the other party's, hoping to have a stronger representation in Westminster to swing any votes.